Strategic Planning Vertical Integration

(1)

In the following report, Hanover Research presents best practices and models for achieving

vertical alignment—alignment of strategic planning priorities at the institutional, college,

departmental, and programmatic levels—in higher education. The first section of the

report reviews literature on the topic and best practices for vertical alignment in strategic

planning, and the second section profiles institutions that have implemented vertical

integration into their strategic planning processes.

Strategic Planning

Vertical Integration

(2)

T

ABLE OF

C

ONTENTS

Executive Summary and Key Findings ... 3

INTRODUCTION ... 3

KEY FINDINGS ... 3

Section I: Models and Best Practices for Vertical Integration ... 5

CHALLENGES THAT RESULT FROM LACK OF STRATEGIC PLANNING COORDINATION ... 5

VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT ... 6

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR VERTICAL ALIGNMENT ... 8

Executing the Strategic Plan and Integrating Budgets ... 9

Strategic Planning Evaluations and Leading Change ... 10

Section II: Institutional Profiles ... 13

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY ... 13

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON ... 16

KENT STATE UNIVERSITY ... 18

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY‐CHICO ... 19

Appendix ... 21

(3)

E

XECUTIVE

S

UMMARY AND

K

EY

F

INDINGS

I

NTRODUCTION

In this report, Hanover Research reviews the literature on best practices and models for

vertical alignment during strategic planning within a higher education institution. This

report also provides examples of how four institutions have vertically integrated strategic

priorities. The report comprises two sections:



Section I outlines the challenges that result from lack of coordination among

different units within an institution during strategic planning, defines vertical and

horizontal alignment, and presents practical considerations for implementing

vertical alignment in strategic planning.



Section II includes profiles of strategic planning strategies at four institutions that

have applied some form of vertical integration to their planning processes.

An appendix to this report provides examples of templates, checklists, and rubrics used for

vertical integration planning and implementation at some of the institutions profiled in this

report.

K

EY

F

INDINGS



The strategic planning process should establish clear linkages between institution‐

wide goals and those of academic schools and departments. The Society for College

and University Planning (SCUP) defines this process as “vertical alignment,” a method

for “aligning and leveraging strategies, actions, and responsibilities at institutional,

college, departmental, and programmatic levels.”1 Vertical alignment can help unify

goals and initiatives across an institution and expedite the execution of key strategies

more consistently.



Establishing a plan for vertical alignment can help institutions address several

common strategic planning challenges by unifying and streamlining the planning

process. For example, communication and coordinated planning across multiple

organizational levels within an institution can help reconcile the divergent goals of a

unit and the broader institution. A plan can also help to prevent planning, assessment,

and budgeting cycles from conflicting with vertical alignment.



When developing a vertically aligned strategic plan, the institution‐wide plan should

be a living document that integrates feedback from each organizational level within

the institution. Each academic unit or program’s plan is tied to the goals of a higher

level plan in the institution, so the planning process should also allow lower level units

1

Norris, D., and N. Poulton. “A Guide to Planning for Change.” Society for College and University Planning, 2010. p. 27. http://www2.cortland.edu/dotAsset/90d13b15‐af02‐4732‐a13f‐0b2c5f81b958.pdf

(4)

to suggest revisions when the boundaries of a higher level plan appear too restrictive

or unnecessary. A university cannot achieve its goals if the academic units below it

cannot execute their own strategic plans.



Commonly, lower level units can select one or more of the institutional goals or

themes they believe are most relevant to their own strategic goals. In their planning

documents, lower level units should explicitly state how each strategic goal or

objective relates to major institutional themes. Templates, rubrics, and other

instructional documents are useful tools to guide lower level units through this

process. For example, Kansas State University provides specific templates and

checklists to academic departments or colleges and major units to guide unit

administrators through developing their own strategic plans.



Synchronizing the annual operating plan and budget planning cycles annually and

over the long term will help institutions execute strategic actions more efficiently.

SCUP recommends that institutions consider state and federal fiscal cycles (where

applicable), academic planning cycles, and human resources calendars, and how these

will affect the timing for implementing strategic actions.



Lead administrators should propose a clear timeline for the alignment process and

provide forums for feedback from stakeholders. Both Kansas State University and

California State University‐Chico, for example, have held retreats for strategic planning

administrators to discuss progress and challenges across organizational units at

different levels within the institution. They also elicited feedback from a broader set of

stakeholders, including faculty, staff, students, and alumni. This approach can build a

sense of ownership in the planning process at multiple levels, while still ensuring that

different levels of the institution are moving toward a common goal.

(5)

S

ECTION

I:

M

ODELS AND

B

EST

P

RACTICES FOR

V

ERTICAL

I

NTEGRATION

Internal coordination throughout the strategic planning process is integral at all

organizational levels to effect holistic change. From academic departments and programs,

to colleges and schools, to the entire institution, each organizational level’s vision and

initiatives should be aligned for an institution to progress toward achieving its strategic

goals. As Dr. William Swart, professor and administrator at Eastern Carolina University and

strategic planning expert, explains:

If a university has a strategic plan but its academic units (colleges and departments)

do not have corresponding tactical plans, then it will be impossible for it to achieve

its vision (except by sheer luck and coincidence). If an academic unit has a tactical

plan, but the university does not have a strategic plan, then there will be no

coordination, and units are likely to be moving in different and contradictory

directions. Thus, any university that takes on a strategic planning effort must carry it throughout all of its organizational levels.2

However, alignment or “vertical integration” of strategic planning throughout an institution

means more than just developing planning documents at multiple organizational levels in

the institution. Planning should involve “intentional correlation” between the institution’s

goals and those of academic schools and departments.3 This coordination should extend

through both strategic planning and outcomes assessments, so that both department‐level

and institution‐level plans and assessment results inform the decision‐making process for

future initiatives.4

C

HALLENGES THAT

R

ESULT FROM

L

ACK OF

S

TRATEGIC

P

LANNING

C

OORDINATION

Nearly every higher education institution in the United States has a strategic planning

process and a budgeting process that guides institutional practice at some level. However,

the implementation and effectiveness of these processes varies widely. Lack of coordination

can lead to a range of roadblocks for an institution’s planning initiatives, outcomes

assessments, and budgeting cycles. As strategic planning and vertical integration are

concepts that grew out of business applications, it is not surprising that business faculty and

administrators within higher education have often been at the forefront of strategic

planning initiatives in colleges and universities. In 2004, Roller, Bovee, and Green, a group of

higher education business education administrators, identified three areas where

2

Swart, W. Leadership for Academic Units, 2010. p. 107.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Uf7GrptiwUIC&dq=vertical+alignment+for+university+strategic+planning&so urce=gbs_navlinks_s

3

Roller, R., S. Bovee, and J. Green. “Integrating Strategic Planning, Budgeting, and Outcomes Assessment in Christian Business Education.” Christian Business Faculty Association Conference, 2004. pp. 5‐6.

http://www.cbfa.org/Roller‐Bovee‐Green.pdf 4

(6)

universities commonly face challenges in strategic planning, budgeting, and outcomes

assessment:5



Differences between institutional level and department, division, and/or school

level;



Incongruences between departmental and institutional level goals; and



Conflicting planning, assessment, and budgeting cycles.

Challenges as a result of differences between the institution and the departments,

divisions, or schools may arise from different perspectives or access to information across

organizational levels. For example, a unit within an institution may view its competitive

placement among peers differently than the institution sees its position as a whole, and this

may influence the content of planning documents differently.6 For this reason, a certain

level of flexibility is needed within the strategic planning framework to allow academic units

to evaluate what is most important to them and to choose their own goals within the

university‐wide framework. This can help to establish a “feeling of ownership” in the

planning process, while still enabling all stakeholders to move toward a common goal.7

Divergent goals between a unit and the broader institution are another common challenge

to strategic planning and budgeting. Within an academic school or department, leaders are

likely to develop plans that will benefit their own unit, although these may be “in conflict or

not synchronized with organizational goals.”8 Institutions that consciously align their

strategic planning at all levels are less likely to encounter this issue.9

Finally, conflicting planning, assessment and budgeting cycles can hinder an institution’s

progress in achieving the goals set out in a strategic plan. If the results of a program

assessment are not available until after the budget proposal has already been approved,

this can make it difficult to link an established priority to the proper resources needed to

affect the change. For these reasons, vertically aligning strategic planning objectives and

integrating assessment and budget cycles are key for optimizing the effectiveness of

planning at all institutional levels.

V

ERTICAL AND

H

ORIZONTAL

A

LIGNMENT

There are many approaches that universities have applied when re‐evaluating their unit or

division strategic plan for alignment with the broader university goals. However, any

approach falls into one of two directional planning processes: top‐down or bottom‐up. As

the Society for College and University Planning (SCUP) highlights, institutions often try to

5

Bulleted points taken verbatim, with minor alterations to improve readability, from: Ibid., pp. 4‐6. 6

Ibid., pp. 4‐5. 7

Lerner, A. “A Strategic Planning Primer for Higher Education.” College of Business Administration and Economics, California State University, July 1999. p. 12. http://www.nu.edu.sa/userfiles/awadm/m31.pdf

8

Roller, Bovee, and Green, Op. cit., p. 5. 9

(7)

maintain “a virtuous balance between top‐down and bottom‐up thinking and planning.”10 In

a bottom‐up approach, an institution’s strategic plan is based on a combination of the

strategic planning goals in each department. Conversely, in a top‐down approach, each

department aligns its mission, goals, and objectives to those of the overarching institutional

strategic plan.11 SCUP notes that planning processes are “highly situational,” but some

processes can be managed centrally (top‐down) while others will be better served through

consensus‐building with decentralized participation (bottom‐up).12

Figure 1.1 Vertical and Horizontal Alignment for Planning, Accreditation, Continuous

Improvement, and Performance

Source: SCUP13

Moreover, planning can be coordinated vertically and horizontally. SCUP defines vertical

alignment as “aligning and leveraging strategies, actions, and responsibilities at institutional,

10

Norris and Poulton, Op. cit., p. 26. 11

(8)

college, departmental, and programmatic levels.”14 Vertical alignment can help unify goals

and initiatives across an institution, and when budget cycles are also aligned, it can expedite

the execution of key strategies more consistently. Horizontal alignment is defined as “the

alignment of strategic planning, capital planning, accreditation and program review,

continuous improvement, and performance management.”15 Figure 1.1 presents the

relationship of processes and feedback that affect vertical and horizontal alignment within

an institution.

P

RACTICAL

C

ONSIDERATIONS FOR

V

ERTICAL

A

LIGNMENT

There are three levels for strategic planning to consider when implementing a vertical

integration plan, as shown below in Figure 1.2. The strategic level of planning consists of

establishing high‐level institutional goals and establishing an implementation plan, while the

operational level involves smaller planning at the division‐ and department‐level of an

institution. Tactical planning, the third level of institutional planning, consists of developing

the policies and procedures that will ensure “effective management, planning, budgeting,

and assessing,” especially at the department level.16

Figure 1.2: Levels of Institutional Planning

STRATEGIC LEVEL OPERATIONAL LEVEL TACTICAL LEVEL

 Institutional objectives and

goals

 Implementation plan

 Divisional‐level plans  Departmental‐level plans

 Policies  Procedures Source: SCUP17

Dr. Swart’s book, Leadership for Academic Units, highlights several basic and practical

considerations for achieving institutional alignment.18 At the institutional level, the strategic

planning document – based on the mission, vision, and values of the university – establishes

boundaries by which all other units will develop their own planning elements (missions,

tactical initiatives, and tactical objectives).19 The academic division’s operational planning

should be based on a draft of the university’s plan, and each department’s plan should be

based on the draft document for its managing academic unit.

At all levels, these documents are still considered to be in “draft” form because vertical

alignment requires an “interactive sequence in which each successive level down in the

organization has the opportunities to negotiate the modification of the higher level plan” if

its boundaries seem too restrictive or unnecessary.20 This multi‐level feedback exchange is

suggested in the SCUP model presented in Figure 1.1 but not fully illustrated as a multi‐ 14 Ibid., p. 27. 15 Ibid., p. 31. 16

Hinton, K. “A Practical Guide to Strategic Planning in Higher Education.” Society for College and University Planning, 2012. pp. 28‐29. http://www.keene.edu/ksc/assets/files/19900/scpguideonplanning.pdf

17

Ibid., p. 28. 18

Swart, Op. cit., p. xi. 19

Ibid., pp. 106‐109. 20

(9)

directional process rather than strictly a top‐to‐bottom approach. At each level, the

strategic plan is a part of a feedback loop of nesting tactical plans, whereby the university

cannot achieve its goals if the academic units below it cannot execute their own strategic

plans.

Figure 1.3 presents a flowchart of feedback between the university, division, college, and

department level plans for a “robust” strategic planning process.21

Figure 1.3: Developing Organizationally Aligned Tactical Plans

Source: Swart22

E

XECUTING THE

S

TRATEGIC

P

LAN AND

I

NTEGRATING

B

UDGETS

SCUP emphasizes that in addition to this feedback loop between different organizational

levels, tactical planning and execution are a vital part of implementing a strategic plan.23

Over the past decade, institutional planning has shifted from having a primary emphasis on

planning (90% of effort) over execution (10%), to a process that gives more weight to the

execution of an institutional plan (60% of effort) over the planning process (40%).24

One of the key elements for executing the strategic plan is integrating the annual operating

plan and budget planning processes. Strategic planning should guide the institution in how it

will allocate resources to achieve its goals, and SCUP emphasizes that “it is critical that the 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23

(10)

budget cycle and the planning cycle be aligned, not only on the annual basis, but over the

long term.”25 This can be difficult because budget cycles must be aligned with state or

federal fiscal cycles, academic planning cycles run by the academic calendar year, and

human resources calendars, which often operate on a January‐to‐December calendar. All of

these calendar cycles should be considered when integrating strategic planning and

budgeting processes.26

Budget and planning cycles should be aligned not only at the institutional level but also at

the academic unit level. Some of the top sources of frustration for academic unit

administrators are related to funding resources, such as “adequate staffing, funding, faculty

compensation, and research support; reasonable program reinvestment; appropriate

technology reinvestment; and influence on budgeting processes.”27 Roller, Bovee, and

Green suggest that an effectively integrated strategic plan and budget process will fulfill the

all of the elements presented in Figure 1.4 below.

Figure 1.4: Elements of an Effective Departmental and Institutional

Planning and Budgeting Process

 Fully identify the cost of proposed action plans;  Be supported by data from the planning process;

 Be informed by clear departmental strategic priorities and rationale;  Be informed by full disclosure of relevant institutional priorities,

constraints, and data; and

 Generate results that are assessed and inform future planning efforts.

Source: Roller, Bovee, and Green28

Roller, Bovee, and Green also recommend embedding estimated costs into an academic

unit’s operational “action plan” alongside each objective so that this information can easily

be integrated into the budget planning process. It also “enables requests for additional

funding to be supported by the results of assessment and environmental scanning processes

and the resulting strategic priorities of the unit and institution.”29

S

TRATEGIC

P

LANNING

E

VALUATIONS AND

L

EADING

C

HANGE

SCUP identifies four main review points in the annual and long‐term planning cycle where

institutions have an opportunity to examine whether goals are being smoothly

implemented. During the annual cycle, the planning committee should meet at the beginning and the midpoint of the planning year. The first meeting allows the committee to

review progress in the previous year and recalibrate or confirm goals for the coming year.

The midpoint review serves to confirm that the institution is on track with its annual goals at

25

Hinton, Op. cit., p. 15. 26

Ibid., pp. 15‐16. 27

Figure contents taken verbatim from: Ibid. 29

(11)

a point where corrections can still have a positive impact on the remaining time left in the

year.30 The third and fourth review points take place near the end of the multi‐year planning

cycle. These points provide an opportunity to document achievements over the life of the

plan and to reflect on how the planning process can be improved.31

For colleges, schools, or other academic units within a university, Roller, Bovee, and Green

suggest a number of ways that unit administrators can effect change in the strategic

planning process. Figure 1.5 lists actionable recommendations for academic unit leaders.

Figure 1.5: Leading Organizational Change as an Academic Unit Administrator

 Lead school‐level planning and assessment efforts;

 Meaningfully involve faculty and staff in the strategic management

process;

 Ensure that the school’s strategic plan is appropriately informed by

operational and student learning assessment results and

environmental scanning;

 Clearly define a relevant mission and goals for the school that support

the institutional mission and goals;

 Clarify the strategic priorities of the school and ensure that these

priorities are in alignment with those of the institution;  Communicate the school’s strategic priorities and budgeting

implications to the administration (in the context of presenting the

strategic plan for review and approval);

 Implement school‐level performance evaluations that are tied to

strategic goals and priorities; and

 Ensure that annual operating and capital budget requests flow from

and are supported by the strategic plan.

Source: Roller, Bovee, and Green32

SCUP also suggests a number of practices that “leading‐edge” institutions have used to help

track progress, increase communication, and execute planning strategies for vertical and

horizontal alignment, presented in Figure 1.6 on the following page.33 A major component

of these vertical and horizontal alignment practices is improving the transparency and

availability of planning documents by creating online repositories that can be easily

updated and tracked over time.

30

Hinton, Op. cit., p. 20. 31

Ibid., pp. 20‐21. 32

Bulleted points presented at the Christian Business Faculty Association Annual Conference in 2004 and taken verbatim from: Roller, Bovee, and Green, Op. cit., p. 34.

33

(12)

Figure 1.6: Vertical and Horizontal Alignment Strategies

VERTICAL ALIGNMENT STRATEGIES HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT STRATEGIES

 Maintain online records of products from strategic thinking or planning processes, including mission, values, and vision statements, the results of a SWOT analysis, and records of strategies and strategic decisions.  Maintain online records of institutional‐level results of strategic planning, including strategies, goals (with targets), actions, responsibilities (individuals or groups responsible for specific actions), and measures/metrics that show progress.  Maintain online records that reflect how institutional‐level strategies cascade to the college, departmental, and programmatic levels through processes of operational and budgetary planning.  Maintain online records of the expeditionary execution of strategies, allowing for progressive refinement and recalibration of strategies as conditions change and analytics yield fresh insights.  Maintain a changing online record of strategies, goals (targets), actions, responsibilities, and measures that cascade from institutional to college to departmental to programmatic levels. The “responsibilities”

record creates a sort of community of practice

for those responsible for the execution of

actions derived from strategies.

 Maintain a changing online record of capital plans, linked to the evolving strategic plan and strategies, that can be refined and revised

annually.  Use templates and rubrics that reflect the “look” of particular regional and programmatic accreditations and to conduct online accreditation activities. By definition,

these approaches are linked to strategic

planning, a key accreditation requirement.

 Manage continuous improvement activities in the same manner as accreditation and program review and link these activities to

strategies and/or “get‐well” recommendations

resulting from accreditation reviews.

 Ensure that performance measurement and management are integral parts of all these horizontally aligned processes. At each stage

and process, measurement is contextualized to

strategies, actions, and/or external

recommendations.

Source: SCUP34

34

(13)

S

ECTION

II:

I

NSTITUTIONAL

P

ROFILES

In this section, Hanover presents examples of vertically integrated strategic planning

strategies implemented by U.S. higher education institutions. When available, each profile

includes information about the transition to a vertically integrated planning process, and an

appendix to this report includes illustrative examples of planning templates referenced in

these profiles.

K

ANSAS

S

TATE

U

NIVERSITY

In February 2010, the president and provost of Kansas State University (Kansas State)

announced the K‐State 2025 Visionary Plan (“K‐State 2025”), an initiative aimed at

propelling the University into the top 50 public research universities by 2025. The initial

strategic planning process was “the culmination of an 18‐month process that involved more

than 500 students, faculty, staff, alumni, and friends” of the University.35 The resulting plan

included seven “theme areas” with eight “common elements” consistent throughout each

theme, as well as eight “key university metrics” to evaluate and benchmark progress over

time. These theme areas, common elements, and key metrics are presented in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Core Components of K‐State 2025

THEME AREAS COMMON ELEMENTS KEY METRICS

1. Research, Scholarly and Creative Activities, and Discovery (RSCAD) 2. Undergraduate Educational Experience 3. Graduate Scholarly Experience 4. Engagement, Extension, Outreach, and Service 5. Faculty and Staff 6. Facilities and Infrastructure 7. Athletics  Diversity  International  Sustainability  Communications and Marketing  External Constituents  Culture  Funding  Technology

 Total Research and

Development Expenditures  Total Endowment

 Number of National Academy

Members

 Number of Faculty Awards  Number of Doctorates Awarded  Freshman‐to‐Sophomore

Retention Ratio

 Six‐Year Graduation Rate  Percentage of Undergraduates

Involved in Formalized Research

Experience Source: Kansas State University36

As a second phase to the institutional strategic planning effort, in September 2011 the

University president announced plans to align the college, major unit, and departmental

planning processes with the new K‐State 2025 strategic plan.37 Figure 2.2 presents the

35

“Message from the President and Provost.” 2025 Visionary Plan, Kansas State University. http://www.k‐ state.edu/2025/plan/

36

“K‐State 2025: A Visionary Plan for Kansas State University.” Kansas State University. http://www.k‐ state.edu/2025/plan/2025‐visionary‐plan.pdf

37

“Aligning College/Major Unit/Departmental Planning.” 2025 Visionary Plan, Kansas State University. http://www.k‐ state.edu/2025/initiatives/college‐planning/

(14)

timeline of steps toward achieving vertical alignment of strategic plans throughout the

University.

Figure 2.2: Strategic Alignment Timeline

Source: Kansas State University38

To assist academic units in the vertical integration process, Kansas State developed a set of

templates and guidance resources for the units to use throughout the planning process. The

planning resources provided to the academic units included:39



Strategic Action Planning and Alignment Guidance and Instructions (College, Major

Unit, and Department levels);40



Strategic Action Plan and Alignment Template for College/Major Unit;41



Strategic Action Plan and Alignment Template for Departments;42



Strategic Action Planning Alignment Checklist (Department level only);43 and



Strategic Action Planning and Alignment Response Chart (College, Major Unit, and

Department levels).44 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid. 40

“College/Major Unit/Departmental Strategic Action Planning and Alignment Guidance and Instructions.” Kansas State University, November 3, 2014. http://www.k‐state.edu/2025/documents/2014.11.03‐Strategic‐Action‐ Planning‐and‐Alignment‐Guidance‐and‐Instructions.pdf

41

“Strategic Action Plan and Alignment Template for College/Major Unit.” Kansas State University, October 2014. http://www.k‐state.edu/2025/documents/K‐State‐2025‐Strategic‐Direction‐Action‐Plan‐and‐Alignment‐ Template‐Oct‐2014.docx

42

“Strategic Action Plan and Alignment Template for Departments.” Kansas State University, July 3, 2013. http://www.k‐state.edu/2025/documents/K‐State‐2025‐Dept‐Strategic‐Action‐Plan‐Template‐7‐3‐13.docx 43

“Strategic Action Planning Alignment Checklist.” Kansas State University, January 25, 2013. http://www.k‐ state.edu/2025/documents/K‐State‐2025‐University‐Alignment‐Checklist‐1‐25‐13.docx

44

“Strategic Action Planning and Alignment Response Chart.” Kansas State University, October 14, 2014. http://www.k‐state.edu/2025/documents/K‐State‐2025‐Alignment‐Response‐Chart‐Oct‐2014.pdf

September 2011 Complete visionary plan May 2012 Draft initial college/ major unit alignment plans June‐August 2012 Review inital plans September‐ November 2012 Develop additional University metrics September‐ December 2012 Complete college and major units plans January 2013‐ May 2014 Develop departmental alignment plans

(15)

The “Strategic Action Planning and Alignment Guidance and Instructions” include an array of

basic information about the planning initiative, including points of contact during the

planning and review process, a timeline overview, the submission process, and detailed

instructions for colleges, major units, and departments on how to complete their plans.45

This document also outlines the “guiding principles” for the planning process at the

academic unit level, presented in Figure 2.3 below.

Figure 2.3: Guiding Principles for Planning

 [The plan must] work for your unit – Be sure your plan reflects your strengths and your vision of

where you are going by 2025.

 College/Major Unit/Departmental plans should align with and support the K‐State 2025 University

Visionary Plan, where appropriate.

 Goal setting should be comprehensive in scope: o Involve faculty, staff, students, and alumni; o Be inclusive of all levels;

o Include quantitative measures for outcomes; and o Use web tools to aid collaboration.

 Planning will translate into operational plans that will relate to budget, staffing, and evaluation.

Other templates and checklists used by Kansas State University are available in the appendix

to this report. The templates and associated alignment checklist assist colleges, major units,

and departments with defining their own goals, linking these to higher level goals in the

institution, and articulating desired outcomes in the short‐term, intermediate‐term, and

long‐term. The templates also ask each unit to evaluate its existing resources, needed

resources to achieve its goals, and plan for acquiring the resources needed to achieve its

goals. This process helps link strategic planning to budget and human resources planning.

The college and major unit plans were submitted in May of 2012, and they were reviewed

and compared across colleges. These proposed college plans were refined several times “to

address gaps and strengthen quantitative measures.” Departmental plans were developed

later after the college‐level planning document revisions were complete. The revision

process included several retreats for deans and other key planning contacts from each unit

to discuss changes and refine guidance documents for future use, as well as individual unit

“progress checks” as the documents neared completion. Additionally, the institution used

the initial college and major unit plans to add metrics for evaluating progress toward

thematic goals across the institution because “metrics should be strategic and meaningful

for [academic] units as well as the university.”47

45

“College/Major Unit/Departmental Strategic Action Planning and Alignment Guidance and Instructions,” Op. cit. 46

Table contents taken verbatim, with some modifications to improve readability, from: Ibid., p. 1. 47

“2025 Planning Contacts Meeting.” Kansas State University, November 8, 2012. http://www.k‐ state.edu/2025/documents/2025‐Planning‐Contacts‐Meeting‐November‐8‐2012.ppsx

(16)

U

NIVERSITY OF

D

AYTON

The University of Dayton most recently developed a strategic planning document in 2006

that defined five “common goals” for the University moving forward. Key points and tactics

to achieve change support each goal. The University chose Education, Scholarship, Identity,

Engagement, and Stewardship as the overarching goals for the institution.48 Vertical

alignment of academic units and departments through comprehensive strategic planning

was not a part of the overall goal for the University of Dayton. However, some academic

units, such as the School of Education and Allied Professions, have developed their own

strategic plans in alignment to the institutionally‐defined goals.49

Although each academic unit was not required to conduct a vertical alignment process, each

one is obligated to develop an “assessment plan” that is consistent with the University of

Dayton’s overall assessment plan. These plans are similar to a strategic plan but are more

concentrated on assessing student learning outcomes and linking them to the institution’s

strategic plan. In contrast, vertical alignment links broader departmental strategic planning

goals with the institution’s goals. Therefore, these assessment plans provide a lesser degree

of vertical alignment within an institution.

The overarching objectives for the University of Dayton’s learning outcomes are:



Scholarship;



Faith Traditions;



Diversity;



Community;



Practical Wisdom;



Critical Evaluation of Our Times; and



Vocation.

Figure 2.4 on the following page presents the required elements for each unit’s assessment

plan. In 2008, the institution shifted its assessment requirements to a “less is more

philosophy” that allowed academic units to focus more deeply on a smaller number of

outcomes during each review cycle.50 The Finance and Administrative Services unit, which

manages the University assessment process, hosts sample assessment plans on its website

as further guidance to units developing their own reports.51

48

“Strategic Plan Introduction.” University of Dayton Strategic Plan.

https://www.udayton.edu/strategicplan/strategic_plan_introduction.htm 49

“School of Education and Allied Professions: Strategic Plan.” University of Dayton, March 16, 2012. https://www.udayton.edu/education/_resources/documents/dean_office/Strategic_Plan.pdf 50

“Assessment Plans of Individual Units.” Finance and Administrative Services, University of Dayton. https://www.udayton.edu/finadmin/ir/assessment/unit_plans.php

51

“Assessment Best Practices.” Finance and Administrative Services, University of Dayton. https://www.udayton.edu/finadmin/ir/assessment/best_practice.php

(17)

Figure 2.4: Essential Elements for Unit Assessment Plans

 Definition of the unit

 Mission and goals of the unit mapped to

broader university goals/mission/strategic plan

 Outcomes mapped to university‐wide learning

outcomes as listed in the University

Assessment Plan (Units are not expected to

cover all of the university‐wide learning

outcomes but must map their outcomes to at

least one of the university‐wide learning

outcomes.)

 Accreditation requirements, if applicable;  Assessment schedule ‐ when each of the

outcomes will be assessed

 Definition of "players" ‐ those responsible for

assessment (individuals, committee, etc.)  Areas in which units will collaborate on

assessment programs ‐ joint efforts, if

applicable (for example, general education and

library literacy, or graduate programs and

corresponding undergraduate programs)

 Description of the process involved ‐ what gets

done by whom ‐ define responsibilities

 How assessment will be documented, including

the assessment plan, revisions to the plan,

measurement results, and actions taken as a

result of assessment

 How assessment results will be used

 How assessment results will be communicated

to constituents ‐ internal and external

audiences (both external to the unit within UD

and external to UD, such as accrediting bodies,

employers, and prospective students)  Measurements to be used, having sufficient

sensitivity to identify specific gaps in student

learning ‐ include multiple measures, multiple

sources, direct and indirect measures

 Constraints, if any, of communicating results to

external audiences

 How information will be reported to the

University Assessment Committee  How results will be tracked over time Source: University of Dayton52

At the University of Dayton, each department within the College of Arts & Sciences develops

an assessment plan. Other academic units within the college, such as the School of Business

Administration, the School of Law, and the Libraries division, develop their own assessment

plans. Every assessment plan must include the following core components: the

departmental mission, learning outcomes and measures, assessment responsibilities, and

assessment schedule.53

Vertical integration of institutional goals is required for the section on learning outcomes

and measures, where each unit must clearly show how its outcomes correlate to institution‐

wide goals. However, units can focus on one or two learning outcomes during each annual

review cycle to evaluate their plan to meet each goal in‐depth, rather than superficially

evaluating all seven institutional measures. Figure A.4 in the appendix to this report

provides an example of how the Geology Department at the University of Dayton aligned

department learning outcomes and metrics to the University‐wide objective of “Practical

Wisdom.”

52

Figure contents taken verbatim from: “Assessment Plans of Individual Units,” Op. cit. 53

See for example: “Geology Department Assessment Plan.” University of Dayton.

(18)

K

ENT

S

TATE

U

NIVERSITY

The University Strategic Plan at Kent State University (Kent State) takes a different approach

to vertical alignment compared to the institutions discussed earlier in this section. The

University outlines six strategic goals within its strategic plan, each with a number of key

themes and tactical objectives. These goals include: 54

1. Ensuring Student Success

2. Enhance Academic Excellence and Innovation

3. Expanding Breakthrough Research and Creative Endeavors

4. Engaging with the World Beyond Our Campuses

5. Securing our Financial Future

6. Developing and Recognizing Our People

The Kent State strategic plan also assigns tactical objectives within key themes to a specific

organizational unit within the University. This process clearly maps institutional strategic

goals to particular organizational units.55 While this centralized process takes some of the

onus off of organizational units in steering the development of their own strategic plan at a

high level, these units are still responsible for creating their own themes, projects, and tasks

within the assigned tactical objectives and the metrics that will be used to evaluate their

progress.56 Figure 2.5 below presents an example of a strategic goal, supporting key theme,

affiliated tactical objectives, and assigned units responsible for that objective.

Figure 2.5: Excerpt from Kent State University Strategic Plan

STRATEGIC GOAL KEY THEME TACTICAL OBJECTIVE

4. Engaging with the

World Beyond Our

Campus

4.1 Incorporate global

perspectives into all of our

educational, research and

service initiatives.

 Internationalize the curriculum among all

Kent State campuses (Academic Affairs)

 Support initiatives of international

students and international student

organizations (Enrollment Management

and Student Affairs)

 Review diversifying the curriculum to

infuse diversity throughout all disciplines (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion)

 Enhance the awareness and reputation of

Kent State University with global

stakeholders (University Relations) Source: Kent State University57

54

Bulleted points taken verbatim from: “University Strategic Plan.” Kent State University. http://www2.kent.edu/excellenceagenda/index.cfm

55 Ibid. 56

See for example: “Division of Human Resources Strategic Plan for a Culture of Excellence: 2012‐2017.” Kent State University. http://www2.kent.edu/hr/upload/hr‐strategic‐plan‐2013.pdf

57

“Strategic Planning Document.” Kent State University, p. 10.

(19)

Apart from the University’s strategic plan, at a minimum other organizational units in the

University have a “Strategy Map” that outlines the vertical alignment of University strategic

goals and key themes with the strategic plans and key themes of the unit. The Strategy Map

also outlines the metrics that will be used to evaluate progress in each major area.58

Some units have a full strategic plan in addition to the Strategy Map. For example, the

Division of Human Resources has a nine‐page strategic plan that includes information on

how the department’s mission aligns with institutional goals, strategic directions for the unit

with associated key themes and projects (similar to the structuring of the University

strategic plan), and the Strategy Map.59 Others, such as the Division of Academic Affairs and

the Division of University Relations, only have a Strategy Map (See Figure A.5 in the

appendix).60

C

ALIFORNIA

S

TATE

U

NIVERSITY

‐C

HICO

At California State University‐Chico (CSU‐Chico), the Division of Academic Affairs has

undertaken an initiative to create strategic alignment from the CSU system‐wide strategic

plan down through the accomplishment reports for individual faculty and staff. This effort

demonstrates the cascading alignment that institutions can pursue from the highest level of

strategic planning to connect goals with individual staff actions. Error! Reference source not

found. on the following page presents the Academic Affairs alignment plan developed as a

part of The Academic Plan.61

According to the provost and vice president for academic affairs, the Academic Plan 2007‐

2012 “provides an initial roadmap for our journey to excellence in instruction, research,

creative activity, and public service. In it, we identify five Academic Affairs goals and

associated strategies by which we support the University's strategic priorities.”62 Prior to

this process, the unit’s plan had strategic goals that related to the overall mission of

University, but the relationship between individual goals for the unit was not clearly

mapped to specific University goals. Academic Affairs is currently undergoing a review of its

Academic Plan through the “Creating New Possibilities” initiative to ensure this alignment.

58

See for example: “EMSA Divisional Strategy Map.” Kent State University, July 20, 2010. http://www2.kent.edu/emsa/about/upload/emsa‐divisional‐strategy‐map.pdf 59

“Division of Human Resources Strategic Plan for a Culture of Excellence: 2012‐2017,” Op. cit. 60

[1] “Academic Affairs Strategy Map.” Kent State University, January 27, 2010.

http://cmsprod.uis.kent.edu/about/administration/provost/upload/Academic‐Affairs‐Strategy‐Map.pdf [2] “University Relations Strategy Map.” Kent State University.

http://www2.kent.edu/about/administration/ur/upload/University‐Relations‐strategic‐map.pdf 61

“Achieving Strategic Alignment: From CSU Strategic Plan to Individual Faculty/Staff Member.” CSU Chico. http://www.csuchico.edu/vpaa/wasc/docs/EERDocs/Theme4/CSUAASPCascade5‐08v.1.0.pdf

62

“Strategic Planning Within Academic Affairs.” Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, CSU Chico, 2014. http://www.csuchico.edu/vpaa/planning/planning/planning‐in‐aa.shtml

(20)

The “Creating New Possibilities” project began in fall 2013

with Phase I, which consisted of “possibility” conversations

with University stakeholders.63 Discussions were data‐

driven, with multiple parties independently analyzing 61

datasets to produce themes for improvement in the

Academic Plan.64 Phase II commenced in spring 2014 with a

number of mini‐retreats and consultation sessions to

interpret the findings of the Phase I data analysis.65 The

following six themes emerged from this analysis:66



Theme 1: Student Lifelong Success



Theme 2: Excellence in Teaching and Learning



Theme 3: Building Community



Theme 4: Faculty Renewal



Theme 5: Staff Renewal



Theme 6: Organizational Process Improvement

The Academic Affairs planning in currently in Phase III, with

designated committee members assigned to develop

“action groups” organized around the six themes identified.

The committees were asked to develop short‐term, intermediate, and long‐term actions

that will help the University to achieve the goals of each theme.67 During this process,

groups work with an Evaluation Rubric document that requires each theme and proposed

action to be directly linked to at least one strategic priority from the University‐wide plan.68

In addition, the committee must identify the following criteria: Key Performance Indicators,

Organizational Impact Level, Organizational Implementation Level, Resource Predictability,

Timeframe for Implementation, Resource Intensity One Time versus Ongoing, Scope of

Impact, and Intensity of Impact. A template of the rubric is presented in Figure A.6 in the

appendix to this report. 63

“Phase I: Fall 2013.” Creating Our Future Together, CSU Chico, 2014. http://www.csuchico.edu/futurepossibilities/phases/phase1.shtml 64

Data were analyzed by the Academic Plan Committee (APC), the Associated Students, and the Academic Senate in collaboration with the President’s Cabinet members, the Staff Council, the Council of Academic Deans (CAD), the Council of Chairs, and the CSU, Chico California Faculty Association (CFA). “Final Report on the Possibility Conversations.” CSU Chico, March 28, 2014. p. 1.

http://www.csuchico.edu/futurepossibilities/documents/apc_report_phase1_final_draft.pdf 65

“Phase II: Spring 2014.” Creating Our Future Together, CSU Chico, 2014. http://www.csuchico.edu/futurepossibilities/phases/phase2.shtml 66

“Creating New Possibilities.” Creating Our Future Together, CSU Chico. http://www.csuchico.edu/futurepossibilities/index.shtml

67

“Phase III: Action Conversations, Fall 2014.” Creating Our Future Together, CSU Chico, 2014. http://www.csuchico.edu/futurepossibilities/phases/phase3.shtml

68

“APC Evaluation Rubric.” CSU Chico, October 2014.

http://www.csuchico.edu/futurepossibilities/documents/apc_evaluation_rubric.pdf CSU Strategic Plan CSU Chico Strategic Plan Academic Affairs Plan Academic Affairs College/Unit Plan Department Plan Program Plan Faculty/Staff Accomplishment Report

Figure 2.6: Achieving Strategic

Alignment in Academic Affairs

(21)

A

PPENDIX

Figure A.1: Strategic Action Plan and Alignment Template for College/Major Unit,

Kansas State University

69

“Strategic Action Plan and Alignment Template for College/Major Unit.” Kansas State University, October 2014. http://www.k‐state.edu/2025/documents/K‐State‐2025‐Strategic‐Direction‐Action‐Plan‐and‐Alignment‐ Template‐Oct‐2014.docx

(22)

Figure A.2: Strategic Action Plan and Alignment Template for Departments,

Kansas State University

70

“Strategic Action Plan and Alignment Template for Departments.” Kansas State University, July 3, 2013. http://www.k‐state.edu/2025/documents/K‐State‐2025‐Dept‐Strategic‐Action‐Plan‐Template‐7‐3‐13.docx

(23)

Figure A.3: Strategic Action Plan and Alignment Checklist (Departmental level only),

(24)

(25)

(26)

71

“Strategic Action Planning Alignment Checklist.” Kansas State University, January 25, 2013. http://www.k‐ state.edu/2025/documents/K‐State‐2025‐University‐Alignment‐Checklist‐1‐25‐13.docx

(27)

Figure A.4: University of Dayton Geology Department Assessment Plan

for “Practical Wisdom” University‐wide Objective

UNIVERSITY‐WIDE OBJECTIVE: PRACTICAL WISDOM

All undergraduates will develop and demonstrate practical wisdom in addressing real human problems

and deep human needs, drawing upon advanced knowledge, values, and skills in their chosen profession

or major course of study. Starting with a conception of human flourishing, students will be able to define

and diagnose symptoms, relationships, and problems clearly and intelligently, construct and evaluate

possible solutions, thoughtfully select and implement solutions, and critically reflect on the process in

light of actual consequences.

PERTINENT GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT OUTCOMES

 Students will demonstrate a firm grasp of the basic principles of Geology as developed in the

introductory sequence of Physical Geology, Historical Geology, and Mineralogy.

 All graduates will demonstrate a familiarity with the fundamentals of geological field investigation.  Graduates will be adequately prepared for employment in the geologic and/or environmental arenas.

 Graduates will demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between science, culture, and

society.

 Environmental Geology majors will display interdisciplinary knowledge that is significant for success

in their field

MEASURES TO BE UTILIZED

 All students will pass a “Second Year Review” of basic knowledge in Geology. The average score on

the first time taking the exam will exceed 80%.

 All physically able graduates will complete at least 15 days of intensive training in the fundamentals

of field investigation, through course work in Field Geology and/or Environmental Instrumentation

Laboratory, independent study and/or thesis work, and class field trips. In conjunction with this work

they will demonstrate skills such as detailed note‐taking and interpretation of observed field

relationships, mapping of rock types or landforms at a variety of scales, detailed observation and

description of earth materials (including measurement and descriptions of stratigraphic sections), and

field‐based sampling procedures and subsequent processing and analysis of samples in the

laboratory.

 At least 75% of graduating students will complete an internship, summer research experience,

summer job, student teaching (for dual degree students), or volunteer experience in an earth science‐

related field.

 On the Annual Survey of Exiting Students, over 75% of graduates will “AGREE” or “STRONGLY AGREE”

with the statement, “As an undergraduate in the Geology Department of the University of Dayton I

believe I am adequately prepared for a career in geology and/or environmental geology.”

 On a Post‐graduate Survey of alumni to be administered three years after graduation, at least 75% of

alumni will AGREE or STRONGLY AGREE with the statement, “I believe that my undergraduate

experience at the University of Dayton adequately prepared me to pursue a career in earth and

environmental sciences or related fields.”

Source: University of Dayton72

72

Figure contents taken verbatim from: “Geology Department Assessment Plan.” University of Dayton, September 2011. pp. 2‐3. https://www.udayton.edu/finadmin/ir/assessment/docs/Assessment_Plan_Geology_2010‐11.pdf

(28)

Figure A.5: Academic Affairs Strategy Map for Kent State University

Source: University of Dayton73

73

“Academic Affairs Strategy Map.” Kent State University, January 27, 2010.

(29)

Figure A.6: CSU Chico Academic Affairs Planning Evaluation Rubric

Source: CSU Chico74

74

“APC Evaluation Rubric.” CSU Chico, October 2014.

(30)

P

ROJECT

E

VALUATION

F

ORM

Hanover Research is committed to providing a work product that meets or exceeds partner

expectations. In keeping with that goal, we would like to hear your opinions regarding our

reports. Feedback is critically important and serves as the strongest mechanism by which we

tailor our research to your organization. When you have had a chance to evaluate this

report, please take a moment to fill out the following questionnaire. http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php

C

AVEAT

The publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this brief. The publisher

and authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or

completeness of the contents of this brief and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of

fitness for a particular purpose. There are no warranties which extend beyond the

descriptions contained in this paragraph. No warranty may be created or extended by

representatives of Hanover Research or its marketing materials. The accuracy and

completeness of the information provided herein and the opinions stated herein are not

guaranteed or warranted to produce any particular results, and the advice and strategies

contained herein may not be suitable for every partner. Neither the publisher nor the

authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but

not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Moreover, Hanover

Research is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services.

Partners requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional.

(31)

4401 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400 Arlington, VA 22203 P 202.559.0500 F866.808.6585 www.hanoverresearch.com